‘GECOM and ethical decision-making’

Nov 25, 2024 Letters

---

Dear Editor

In 2022, a United Kingdom government document setting out the aims of its proposed Elections Bill said that the changes to the Electoral Commission ‘would improve its accountability to government and that it would remain operationally independent.’

The Commissioners hit back: ‘It is the firm view of the Commissioners that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement — enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission — is inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democratic system. If made law, these provisions will enable a government in the future to influence the Commission’s operational functions and decision-making’ (‘UK election watchdog warns new law could impact its independence. Reuters, February 21, 2022).

Notwithstanding Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Guyana is a very unhealthy democracy. On the 2024 V-democracy Liberal Democratic Index Denmark is placed at 1, Barbados 35, Jamaica 36, Trinidad and Tobago 43, Suriname 44, Guyana 93 and India 104. The quotation above is to remind that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is intended to be an independent elections management body and to give an indication of the nature of that independence.

In healthy democracies, public servants must adhere to codes of ethics. In the US the most influential is the 2013 code. The 1st, and 2nd rules seek to: 1. Advance the public interest: promote the interests of the public and put service to the public above service to oneself. 2. Uphold the Constitution and the law: respect and support government constitutions and laws while seeking to improve laws and policies to promote the public good. Largely based upon this model there are similar codes of ethics that deal specifically with various professions including elections management. (https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/8c/e0/ 8ce078e3-5b39-47ce-b393-4d5fbeec18be/ ethical_standards_for_election_officials-jan2024.pdf). 

It follows that regardless of what the Constitution, the law, the parties, civil society, etc. think, say or recommend, after thoroughly considering all these an independent GECOM must, where necessary, take the initiative and recommend policies that are in the public interest. It is not for it to merely speak of the legal and other obstacles in its way but to do so and try to force changes in the context of recommended policies.

For example, in response to opposition accusations that she is biased on behalf of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government and should resign, the present chairperson of GECOM claims that ‘there is an accusation that I am always voting with the PPP. I make my own decision. I voted with the commission; the fact is there are three commissioners on each side. I have the casting vote. That is what I have from the legislation. So, what do I do when they have a tie? I have to cast the vote. I make up my own decisions it’s not that I am voting with the PPP’ (SN: 23/11/2024).

Certainly, the fact that she always has voted with the PPP is sufficient reason for oppposition parties to believe that she is biased. It is possible that the opposition has always been wrong, and given the structure of GECOM, the chairperson is in a difficult but not unconquerable position. But she is supposedly independent and should be persistently calling for the reform of the institution and immediately institute – with the aid of only the opposition, if necessary – an external third-party review of those of her decisions the opposition feels strongly about. It is insufficient, amoral and undemocratic to persistently vote with one side without introducing measures to change this situation and avoid the obvious consequences. Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done and half the country believes the opposition’s story.

I cannot remember having ever heard GECOM making a robust case against the government and/or opposition for some action that it considers is in the public interest. Most of its utterings are usually mired in excuses. This is largely because as structured, GECOM is not an independent body: it is essentially a body through which the PPP and PNC try to assert or maintain their interests. Put another way, it is structured in a fashion that makes it difficult to deal with ethical issues i.e. moral issues such as right versus wrong, good or bad and fair or unfair, that underpin its work.

This kind of structure encourages organisational partisanship, so it is almost impossible for it and its employees to be imbued with a philosophy committed to ethical reasoning. To an approach that rigorously ascertain the facts and then consider who will be affected by the decision. What are their concerns? Do their interests conflict? What can and cannot be done? Evaluate the ethics of each alternative and determine how to best address the dilemma in the public interest. The final step must be to follow Kant: ‘I ought never to act except in such a way that I also will that my maxim should become a universal law’ (https://www.scu.edu/ethics/all-about-ethics/all-about-ethics-blog).

Take the current opposition demand for the introduction of biometrics.  We are told that, ‘Regarding the potential implementation of biometrics, the chairperson stated that the issue is still under discussion within the commission. …. They wanted biometrics all the time they say they want it, and they just went around.’ What nonsense!  Biometrics is today a normal feature of electoral management and without even the opposition requesting it, GECOM should have had a studied position, for or against, that it could defend in the public interest (SN: 23/11/2024).

In the absence of a GECOM position, the PPP took off in a manner that is intended to confuse rather than elucidate.  The public is told biometrics cannot be implemented because it ‘conflicts with the constitution’ in a context where the joint opposition has already expressed preparedness to support ‘constitutional changes’ and it is inconceivable that it would not have given support for such constitutional changes having been the requester of biometrics. Furthermore, the PPP’s general secretary had said, ‘Once it’s not disruptive to the voting, disenfranchise voters and delay the elections we’d look at it favourably (SN: 20/11/2024). En passant, Ghana’s population is 25 million, but the entire electorate was reregistered using biometric markers (ten fingerprints) in a six-week period in spring 2012.

Given the difficulty in finding an independent chairperson, it might well be impossible to find seven GECOM commissioners acceptable to the political parties. But as suggested above, all is not lost if the chairperson is sufficiently strong and determined to prioritise the public interest and gradually transform GECOM in theory and practice into the neutral body it is intended to and should be.

Sincerely

Dr. Henry Jeffrey

(‘GECOM and ethical decision-making’

---

• Elections Bill, Electoral Commission, People’s Progressive Party Civic, Strategy and Policy Statement, unhealthy democracy

---